About your Search

20120925
20121003
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
that when susan rice was sent out to tell us it was in response to a video and just a spontaneous act. what, please put this in perspective for us. >> well, let's have the most generous interpretation possible for this administration. when eli lake broke the story, why i think it is wrong, this is only explanation possible. when eli lake broke the story. megyn: "daily beast". >> yeah for "the daily beast", soon after the attack we had a pretty good bead on some of the individuals involved in the attack. another one said we had two kinds of intelligence on one guy. we believe we had enough to target him. these guys have return address, camps people and variety of things we could do. if you had intelligence about a possible terrorist attack would make sense not to tip off al qaeda that we knew so we could have element of surprise if we wanted to respond to it. the problem with that is, one we didn't respond. it has been 17 days and there have been no drone strikes on al qaeda camps or, return address hasn't been hit anywhere. two, there is difference w hole holding intelligence and lying abou
. moments ago, four top republican senators sent a letter to u.n. ambassador susan rice seeking clarification on her very public statements that the september 11th terrorist attack in benghazi, libya, this year was the result of a, quote: spontaneous reaction. the letter writes in part, quote: in the aftermath of the september 11th terrorist attack in the benghazi that resulted in the death of four americans including ambassador chris stevens, you made several troubling statements that are inconsistent with the facts and require explanation. we look toward -- forward to a timely response. those statements involved ambassador rice appearing on several national news broadcasts in which she blamed a spontaneous protest for the murders. but as more and more information came to light, including this video of attackers at the u.s. compound with rocket-protelled grenades and clearly no protests around them, it has become clear that was not the case and the information was not accurate. senator barrasso, a republican from wyoming, yesterday said on fox news business -- fox business news
of the administration in sending susan rice to say this is a spontaneous demonstration when as you reported it was known inside the administration within a day that is was not. it was a terror attack. why did they deceive? it's obvious. the attack took place five days after the democrats spent a week in charlotte touting, spiking the football on oh sa -- spikinn osama. within a week of al qaeda sacks a u.s. embassy, kill an ambassador and the administration did not want to admit. they not they stringt out the media wouldn't care. megyn: joining me now, andy card, former white house chief of staff under former president george w. bush. your thoughts on charles's theory. >> i believe the white house must have had some intelligence work prior to 9/11 to anticipate where attacks could be on 9/11. it would have been logical for our intelligence community to want to brief the president about what intelligence work we were discovering and what had to be done to harden potential targets around the world. i also honestly believe the fault expectation at the white house should have been this was a terrorist attac
news alert, moments ago the state department can defended u.n. ambassador susan rice after new calls went out this weekend demanding her resignation. congressional critics are angry that ms. rice was talking to the media some four days after a terror attack killed four americans in libya and telling reporters across this nation that it was a spontaneous protest that was behind the attack when fox news and now other news outlets have reported that the white house knew within 24 hours that this was a terror attack and not some spontaneous event. the administration is maintaining that they gave us the information as it evolved and as it came to be known by them. there is, at a minimum, some question about that. the white house is also facing tough new questions about the president's decision to attend a campaign event in vegas within 24 hours of the attack. white house senior adviser david plouffe -- keep in mind, this is the first time they've put the senior advisers out there since all this happened -- but they were on the sunday shows this weekend, and mr. plouffe was challenged outr
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)